Back on topic. The top kill, at this point, is most likely working. The fact that they continue to pump mud this far into it points to the liklihood that they are getting the desired affect. The reason: if it was not working they would have probably stopped pumping so as to not risk damaging anything else. Hopefully this is the case.
Correct me if I am wrong but most of the wells and oil we have has been "tapped" but isn't producing as companies are not interested in producing oil from these fields at this time. Deep Horizon wasn't even suppose to be producing oil - it was just exploratory - opening up a well and then capping it for later use. If there is such an energy crisis - why don't the companies start pumping out oil from all these fields - why are they drilling new holes instead???
In this particular well, they were done exploring, and were casing the well (and capping it). The exploration rig will cap the well after they determine its good to go. They then move off the exploration rig and move in the production rig. This well would have been moved to production within weeks. As for holding back on explored wells, I would say that is not the case most of the time. In my experience, the company requires the return on investment. They may have sunk $500 million to $1 billion in an average deepwater well and need it to start producing ASAP. Move that exploration rig out of the way and move that production rig in. As for economic impact, there is an entire Gulf Coast industry in JUST the exploration of new wells, especially deep water. Entire companies that do nothing but deep water exploration have just been shut down and possibly put out of business. Its not just BIG OIL companies. Lots and lots of Mom and Pop to mid sized companies employing a couple dozen to 1000 people have just been destroyed in communities where 80% of the revenue comes from them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100527/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2285 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_mistakes
In almost all industrial accidents, it is a string of mismanagement and mistakes, often small, some large that lead to the disaster. In this case, it may have begun with a faulty casing job, then the decision to use water instead of mud (which is actually not that rare), then the rig workers didn't throw the kill switch, then they did, then the hydrolics on the BOP failed, then the rig blew, then the coast guard sank the rig, then the well started leaking. If any of the above points had not happened, this either doesn't happen, or is minimized. Its often a string of events. Halliburton performed a faulty job, the BP guy wanted to use water instead of mud, the Transocean manager didn't kill the process (they have the authority to shut down at any time, from the cook to the VP on these rigs), the BOP was thrown, but Transocean hadn't maintained the hydrolics, or Cameron had a faulty one, the rescue mission sank the rig...all down the line. Blame will be assigned up and down the chain, with BP bearing the brunt. This issue, which more and more looks like it'll be hard to prove, is whether it was criminal.
Looks more and more like it will be hard to prove? Sorry but that seems like a BP style flow estimate. Every day it seems there's a new document or disclosure which tends to show at a minimum negligence with it probably being more like recklessness, which is all that is required for misdemeanor convictions under several statutes. While it doesn't seem like much, that is huge becuase IIRC it removes the damages caps under certain laws.
then the coast guard sank the rig ------------------------------------- How did this happen? I missed that. I thought it just was on fire long enough to cause it to become unstable and sink.
she actually took on the oil companies, to her constituents' benefit, over the building of the alaska pipeline. you could look it up.
It’s a classic example of liberals underestimating Sarahcudda’s political wits, the savvy moves she made during her years in Alaska politics that put her on the footing that allowed her to become nationally relevant. stop it! Yer killin' me here!! LOL!!!!!!!!
LMFAO, I went back to the actual story that is the source of these comments from this random blog poster (rather than the blog post you linked to, which links to another blog post, which links back to the actual source) and it is pretty unflattering. Bascially it portrays her as a dumb hick bumpkin who got completely railroaded in a poor attempt to be a populist: Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/executives...-Big-Energy-Battles/index1.html#ixzz0pAJiEs1J I omitted the part where it discusses whether or not she is a psychopath or what kind mental disorder she has, even though it was quite awesome. So - you're right, she took on BIG OIL and then somehow snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The moron of Wasillia rides again!
that was actually the point of the post i linked to- the article tried to portray her as a dumb hick, but FAILED.
Actually no, the point of the stupid blog post you linked to was: Sarah Palin has more oil spill credibility than you think to bolster her r****ded accusations about Obama being in the pocket of big oil. The point of the post that THAT post linked to was: Portfolio promotes Palin’s populist pose And contains this astute observation: "In a sense, it makes Palin sound admirable" If you call marveling at how badly and stupidly her attempt to be populist FAILED (the pipeline wasn't built, and alaska was out up to $500mm - I'd call that a FAIL, woudn't you?), and openly wondering what psychogical disorder she suffers "promoting" her populism, I guess you too must suffer from the psychological disorder known as "magical thinking" - though I believe it's probably just that you are really really not smart. But congratulations, you bested mc mark here in the "Palin taking on big oil!" claim. She indeed did. And lost. As did you - by citing an article that wonders whether or not her failed attempt to do the pipeline is symptom of whether or not "'She's a ****ing psychopath'" or suffers from "magical thinking" disorder. "In a sense, it makes Palin sound admirable" In what sense is that?
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that there had just been two massive explosions, the rig was on fire, people were dead and some pin-brained idiot was sitting there waiting for UPPER MANAGEMENT APPROVAL to hit the kill switch. What. The. Heck.
That's not how the article paints it. That anecdote comes right after the explosion, and then there's this quote:
